User talk:Majorly

Welcome to Majorly's talk page.

    MAJORLY

Guidelines

I have ended all participation with Wikipedia, so will not be replying to any further messages left here. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page by starting a new thread, using a descriptive header. Is your comment missing? It's probably in my archives. I will normally answer on this page. Please note that the talkback template is officially banned on this page! :) So don't use it here; I watch your talk if I've left you a note. Thanks!

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70 All

---

Thank you

I really appreciate you reconsidering your vote. I'm hopeful that we will see some changes in the way that Checkuser and Oversight access is assigned, maybe even during the first quarter. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Template:Sound sample box align right Template:Sample box end Majorly, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You're at 3RR on ANI. Might want to stop. // roux   19:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be AN, and yes I know. Stopping now. Majorly talk 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted you

Only to see that there was a post already on VP. I went to restore your removal only do discover that there is already some activity there, that I don't want to swim in. I apologize for the revert. You were correct. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy moley

Ten times in the span of four minutes... that's one dedicated kook. For a laugh, feel free to check his contribution history - each and every edit, a sterling example of how not to edit.

Hope you've had a good winter holiday of choice (personally, I'm a fan of this one, and I hope everything's well with you in general. I'm sorry for letting the snark approach boiling point earlier in the summer - feel like blaming it all on the 2008 ArbCom and letting bygones be bygones? Badger Drink (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there! I dunno who you're talking about - link? Yes I'm having a very nice holiday, thanks for asking. You know, I'd like nothing better than letting bygones be bygones between us - you might be interested in reading my blog's latest post. I was very immature at times, but I'm seriously making an effort to stop that and redeem myself back to the way I was in early 2007 when I wasn't so angry at things, and actually had some respect in the community. Believe it or not, in real life I'm one of the most quietest, shyest sensible people ever. I think I "let myself go" on the wiki because the wiki is faceless - it's a place where I forgot people had feelings behind a screen-name. Anyway, hope all is well with you. Majorly talk 04:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File talk:BananaShoeShine.gif

Hi. I don't know what you deleted at the above Talk page but I see these problems with this animated image: :

1. Black level of the "polishing" part of the sequence is too light.

2. The description is of stop-motion animation "Made by using physical pieces and moving them each time." BUT the sequence was not made this way.

Comment? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to go to commons and question it there, since that's where the file is hosted. Majorly talk

Non free images of living people

Setting Suntag's own answer aside, your comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag that "Non-free images of living people should never be used on Wikipedia, because they are always going to be replaceable as long as the person is living" is simply not always true. When a person is known primarily or only for his looks at a particular point in time, then it may add encyclopedic value to use a picture that reflects that depending on the particulars of the use. Another exception is when the person is unavailable for photography and will likely remain so for life, such as a person who is legally listed as missing, a person who is known to be in hiding such as a terrorist, a person who is imprisoned for life, or a person who has taken lifetime vows in a cloistered religious order. Granted, there are probably free images of suspected terrorists and convicted criminals, and missing persons can reasonably be treated as deceased for these purposes, but you get my point.

Please consider that using a non-free picture of a person in a bio of that person must be done on a case-by-case basis. 99% or even 99.999% of the time the answer may be "no" but it's not 100%.

Also, when the image appears as part of something else, such as an album cover, book cover, video still, or famous photograph, and the image is used in accordance with existing non-free guidelines for those types of work, the presence of a person's face on the image shouldn't change anything.

Having said that, if the person is still realistically available to be photographed and the proposed image doesn't add significant value beyond the best possible free image that could be taken, if only I had a camera and were close enough to shoot, then it's not appropriate to use a non-free picture of a living person in an article about that person, and it's not appropriate for me to use a non-free picture that's "just a picture of that person" for any other purpose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

I responded here to your comments. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Majorly! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New year!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks a lot Majorly, you really are a model wikipedian :-) Happy new year Patton123 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

and to you as well

thanks, nice to see yo around. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and may your year (and each one after) be happy as well : ) - jc37 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year Majorly! Whether we were friends or not? :O Of course we were :D (though I notice that's a template message :D).

Wishing you a joyful 2009,

The Helpful One 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello friend soame to you too! I can't remember did we come into confict or something? Did you try to break into my volcano or something or steal a Kreblakistani nuclear warhead from me? LOL The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! I hope that everything you wish for comes true in '09! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, Majorly. Cheers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Majorly, you too! Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Why, thank you! [1] Happy New Year to you too, Majorly. I hope we were friends; more than that I hope we will be in the coming year. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes, Majorly; I wish you a healthy and happy New Year as well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And Happy New Year from me. I wish I knew how to do all this tricksy Merry Christmas and HNY stuff to everyone, not doing it makes me feel unfriendly. Next year hopefully! dougweller (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Same from me - hope 2009 is a good year for you. Thanks for the message ;) _TalkIslander 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise to all the above, Majorly; thank you for your kind words, and I wish you the happiest of new years. Regards, GlassCobra 23:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We shall endeavour to keep this a joyful year! Likewise to all the above, and thank you. Caulde 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, let's look forward to a better year ahead! Happy new year! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per above —Animum (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A peaceful 2009 to you

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for your new year's greetings. Let's hope for a serene 2009, both on-Wiki and in the real world. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks:) HNY! Have a good one:) Any resolutions? Mine are mainly the really average ones, exercise etc. Sticky Parkin 23:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too, Alex. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Orly?

Of course, now the question is, were we friends? ;) I hope you have a good year as well; and I wish you luck in finding a decent New Year's Resolution, I've succeeded in failing. ^{And of course we were friends... right?} · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we were (are!) Majorly talk 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

Majorly,

Despite our disagreements, I've always considered you a friend, and wish you nothing but the best in 2009. - Philippe 07:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seasons

To you too Majorly. That was a nice gesture and is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA-related request for more eyeballs spam

I'm asking a few RFA regulars (no offense intended!) to review two threads I'm thinking of posting to WT:RFA at User:Barneca/RFA sandbox and give me a little feedback on:

• Whether you think I'd be wasting my time
• If you can think of any drastic improvements I could make prior to posting this
• Which option you think I should pursue (I don't think proposing both, and having people "vote", is a good idea; far too easily sidetracked)
• If you think there's a good Option 3 that I haven't considered
• Any other feedback you're interested in giving me

I'll probably post something to WT:RFA next week, after my schedule eases a little bit, so no critical rush to reply; you've probably got 5+ days before I post anything anywhere. If someone comes up with significant changes I think are good ideas, I'll probably delay even longer.

If you're interested, please post to the sandbox's talk page. If you are not Majorly, but one of his talk page stalkers reading this, you're welcome to comment as well; I'm not trying to hide this from anyone, just iron out any obvious kinks before it goes live, to prevent minutiae from sidetracking the discussion (that seems to happen quite often). I'm hoping against hope that this leads to actual change, rather than fruitless discussion, so I really want to try to get all my ducks in a row before springing this on WT:RFA.

Thanks in advance, and sorry if this spam is unwelcome; I won't bug you again. --barneca (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

a big G'day for 2009 :-)

I got your new years message, and I think I vaguely recall having read a blog post of yours describing some of the stresses of the last year etc. - I thought I'd swing by to say that I'm sure 2009 will be fantastic, and that what's important is that you are here to have fun, and contribute, and make the website better, and certainly not what people think of you - it all comes out in the wash..... take care, and see you around! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane End Primary School (2nd nomination)

Next time you nominate an article for deletion, could you please inform the appropriate wikipeojects. It's not mandatory of course, but it helps. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Helps what? Majorly talk 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Getting a wide range of opinions. WP:WPSCHOOLS have a deletion sorting page, but WP:GM and many smaller projects don't, and often the only way they'll find out is if someone leaves a note on their talkpage. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And why would they need to find out? I worked at this school, twice (once in 2005, and during summer 2007 as a classroom assistant) and know that the claims on the AFD about it being "special" or "unique" are simply false. It's a tiny one form entry village primary school. I simply cannot understand how it has its own article. My own house is probably more notable. Majorly talk 17:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was talking more generally that projects should be informed, but taking this case, I'm not saying you were wrong to try and get the article deleted. I would have argued for its deletion, and I'm sure others of WP:GM and WP:WPSCHOOLS would have because its fails WP:WPSCHOOLS general notability guidelines. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Next time then. Majorly talk 17:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Crat Stats

Thank you for your kind offer. --Dweller (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-project apology

I'd just like to apologise for my edit to the discussion you recently started on meta regarding Jimbo's user rights. I have little to no experience editing or viewing the project and whatever my opinion of the discussion I was not in a position to comment and my contribution was not helpful. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, you weren't at all unhelpful in the thread. Majorly talk 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pillows

Pillow is on my watchlist as it occasionally receives vandalism and doesn't seem to be watchlisted by many other people. I have learned that there exists some difference in terminology between the US and the UK regarding what qualifies as a pillow, and so I've written it into the first paragraph. In America, the term cushion generally only covers things intended to be sat on, and pillow covers everything else, even the little square decorative things you put on sofas and the toilet-seat-shaped ones you wrap around your neck on the airplane. In other words, in the US, File:Cushion.jpg is a pillow, and in the UK, perhaps along with the other Commonwealth countries, it's a cushion. I would say that there is no right or wrong answer to whether the image should be as it is; personally I liked the article the way I left it because File:Cushion.jpg looks more visually appealing to me than that old unsleepable Vrba Postelja bed. I have lots of pillows of all types in my home and could probably contribute some images of my own if need be. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Then assure that it is actually a pillow everywhere, not just the US. Majorly talk 16:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just want to know

...who watches this talk page? Please sign below if you do! Thanks.

1. Majorly talk 02:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I guess I do, and was sufficiently curious about the edit summary to swing by :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
3. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I do, also watch Juliancolton's and Neurolysis's.--Patton^t/c 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
5. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Auto-added to my watchlist at some point GTD 18:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Not on watchlist, but manually. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
8. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Number nine...number nine...number nine...number nine... Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
10. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Crat stats

Are you still interested in this: User:NoSeptember/crat stats? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but please don't wait for me to update it. I have a lot of work on right now - 2 assignments due in at the end of the month, another end of Feb, a seminar to prepare for, and a placement to prepare for in Feb. I'll update it when I can, but anyone can update it. Majorly talk 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put a message on BN. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So...

... you're saying I'm not attractive?[2] Hmm? Hahaha XD لennavecia 19:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting questions

Not that I plan to make any sort of deal about it, but regarding this - I agree with removal of the first one, but disagree with removing Mr. IP's. Probing the intellect of the candidate and their possible solutions to problems is valid. Not something I would do, and makes adminship a much more daunting office for which to run, but I think we're all entitled to our standards. Bottom line - I don't think it was frivolous. That's it, just my two cents. Tan | 39 22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your post to RfA

Hey Majorly,

Regarding your post to RfA:

1. While we don't always agree (in fact I think we rarely agree) you do have my respect. I never expected the events to happen that happened that lead to your stepping down. In fact, I was kind of caught off guard because prior to that I never thought we really had a problem... I found myself caught in a fight I didn't see coming. I felt that you held some animosity towards me that I was unaware of until the very end (when you started making some unexpected pot shots on me)---I don't know what fueled it, but whatever it was, trust me when I say, I had no malace towards you.
2. If you ever decide to run again, assuming you keep to this path, I would not be opposed to being one of your nominators. Of course, I'd have to vet you like I do all of my candidates, but you were a respected admin... and I believe you could be again.
3. As I've said before, being an admin isn't about the buttons, it is about the attitude, and the attitude that I've seen from you this past week or two has been one of an admin. It is one that I respect, and I'm starting to see what we've lost when you were forced to step down.

I am a firm beleiver in second chances.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Replied good sir. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3, or easy, tiger.

With all due respect, Majorly, I think you should disengage and redact the last comment. Dlohcierekim 21:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Majorly talk 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy (belated) New Year

Sorry I didn't get your message until now, I haven't logged on for weeks (as you can see from my contribs history) due to having tons of work to do. Happy New Year to you too. Walton^One 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you friend. Hope life is treating you well. Come back soon, we need more sane voices in discussions. Majorly talk 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham_3

Are you a glutton for punishment?:) Be great if you could chip in...mmmm, chips, yum. Sticky Parkin 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See if you can advertise it. Post notes to the people on Wikipedia:Meetup/UK and also, send an email to the UK mailing list (if you aren't on it, just say and I will.) Majorly talk 02:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on it. Ooh, that would be very helpful, please do.:) Say it's still at the planning stage as regards the date, although 21st feb is proposed by myself:) But if people want it later in the year, after the Mancs meet, that's fine too. Sticky Parkin 19:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of any other ways we can pique people's interest (a calendar, maybe, lol:) ) Sticky Parkin 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

People are aware of it, I think you just need to get a date set, that's not too close to the Manc one. Majorly talk 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

minnowed

Whack

You have been minnowed for: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rlevse/Application to date my daughter

this user is a sock puppet Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Seashell Trust

On January 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Seashell Trust, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

Maddie! has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see you! Majorly talk 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Majorly for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: meetup

I didn't realise that the mancs one was finalized yet. I can only attend one due to financial reasons, and I assume the Manchester one will probably be cheaper, so I'll probably just go to that one. — neuro^(talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

MW

I thought this justified it though: "People who leave a goodbye message on their talk page or elsewhere, and then actually refrain from editing for at least two weeks are likely to have left permanently and may be added to the list". -- Mentisock 10:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not missing though... Majorly talk 11:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are many retired users on that list. -- Mentisock 11:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Um... so? Any clarification? -- Mentisock 09:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The people who have explicitly retired aren't missing. They let us know they were going somewhere. Missing sort of implies we don't know what happened to them. That's not the case with WJBscribe. Majorly talk 12:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does imply that but what about the likes of Zoe etc. who left a message on her userpage saying she'll leave? She was still added. And what about the sentence I quoted above? Or this might seem inconsistent... -- Mentisock 09:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, Zoe isn't missing, she (or he as it were) simply left. Zoe actually did come back very briefly last year. I think the page should reflect those missing, not those simply retired. Perhaps a new page could be made. If I'm wrong though, feel free to add WJB back, though I do disagree. Majorly talk 15:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, Zoe could have been male? Well, the account only seemed compromised. In any case I think consistency for now would be good. They were actually discussing it. -- Mentisock 15:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Optim

Ahh, right, he said it when he was leaving [3] and Brion waited until the block expired (and then some time), to de-crat him. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Brion didn't decrat him, Datrio did. Majorly talk 18:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hey there Majorly, since I brought your name up on my talk page, I thought I'd mention that here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Done with my dissertation; life is settling down somewhat. Am pondering my own RfA in... a month? Six weeks? Dunno. But see you there. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to voting! :D Majorly talk 13:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Itsmejudith

Hi there; ref my comment in support at this editor's RfA, and you comment in turn, which I have only just seen. My point, possibly mistaken, about Moreschi, was that I got the impression that he was trying to make a point about the RfA process in general, and that a specific RfA would clearly be the wrong place so to do. But if my impression was wrong then I apologise herewith both to him and to you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Useight (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Majorly talk 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Majorly's (and others') Day!

Majorly has been identified as an almost awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, he's officially declared today as Majorly's day! For being almost awesome enough to have someone else declare his own day, and for not asking really nicely, enjoy being (one of the) star(s) of the day, Majorly! Best Wishes, Giggy (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am honoured to receive this prestigious award. I shall treasure it always in my talk page archive. Majorly talk 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Numbers vs. words

Hi, just wondering, where does it say in the MOS that numbers should be used instead of words in the opening of articles such as those on presidents of the United States? It really doesn't matter either way to me, but I believe words have been used for a while. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems quite clear to me. Words have indeed been used, but they shouldn't really. It's both inconsistent (within the article, there's digits in the infobox) and it violates the MOS. I've tried to change them, but people don't seem to listen. *shrug*. Especially as Barack Obama is a featured article, it should be setting the example, not following the bad examples. Majorly talk 03:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is really not all that clear. Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words says: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). This applies to ordinal numbers as well as cardinal numbers." So it is at the discretion of the concensus. I read through the exceptions and nothing seems to justify writing "43" over "forty-three". Again, this issue specifically does not really matter to me, but consistency and consensus building do, so I would attempt to gain a general consensus before proceeding to change them all. I was just looking at the Obama article nearly a half-hour ago and it read "fourty-four". --Happyme22 (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna start reverting to the numerial version today, with the US Presidents & Vice Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mission accomplished: The US Presidents (beginning with Polk) & the US Vice Presidents (beginning with Dallas), have been digitized. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Icanhastemplates?

lol, sorry. You weren't serious on Talk:RFA, by the way? rootology (C)(T) 17:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was... Majorly talk 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a self-nom would be a good thing. But it's an interesting idea for doing image stuff, especially for commons moves... rootology (C)(T) 18:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Hypocrisy forever!

You finally tripped up, and I've found it. Think twice before you apply for RFA, and yes, I know you've thought about it.

Remember when you wrote: "Some people are just not suited I'm afraid. I'm honestly surprised he's not been banned yet. Certainly shouldn't be promoted to admin."

Just yesterday you wrote at Rootology's RFA: "it's almost as if Rootology is a different person. I have not seen a single bad thing come from him since he returned. This is clear proof that people can change. Rootology is dedicated to writing the encyclopedia. [...] and has recently shown he could put admin tools to great use here as well. Since more admins are needed, and Rootology has shown he is totally dedicated and qualified, this should be an obvious shoe-in."

You're saying this about someone who actually was banned. Yet to me, even though I never was banned, you said you would never support. You are a hypocrite, Alex. BURN! Yechiel (Shalom) 04:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BAHAHAHA! Rootology is nothing like you, Shalom. Rootology didn't vandalise Wikipedia. Rootology didn't create harrassment accounts such as Minorly (talk · contribs). Rootology didn't start his wiki-life creating a Google bomb. Yes, he was banned, but that was after he got in too deep in a dispute. Yes, he did some stupid things off-wiki. So have you. Like your constant whining about me opposing your RFA. And I'm glad you failed it. I'm glad I opposed. Only rarely am I pleased to oppose someone's RFA. This is one rare occasion I am pleased you failed. You haven't changed, Shalom. Now, kindly get off of my talk page and stay away from me. I've had just about enough of you. Majorly talk 11:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I suffering Deja Vu here??? didn't I read this someplace else??? I mean, if you're going to make attacks, make sure they are personal, not cut and paste!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Helen Atkinson-Wood

Those are the details from imdb. Tim! (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You endorsement of my latest action...

I wanted to make a comment about "Next thing we'll be asking is if banana's are yellow," but I didn't want you to take that the wrong way ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Current RFA thread

Majorly, I always drop by a talk page when I say something in a thread that someone might interpret as a put-down ... I never consciously put anyone down on Wikipedia, and I want to make sure we're clear. I talked about people talking with "moral authority" at WT:RFA#Arbitrary break about how arbitrarily everyone is dismissing keepscase's perspective. I agree with your position on silly questions. I don't want to make a call whether that applies to Keepscases' questions or not; his questions have enough support that it's likely to just become a big brawl with people complaining about censorship, but I support the idea of looking at anything that would improve RFA, looking for consensus, and writing it down. My sense is that consensus is leaning in the direction of letting people ask whatever question they want to at RFA, but that whatever it is that's making people uncomfortable might be dealt with by letting candidates know in the RFA instructions that it's a minority position that "silly" questions are useful in RFAs. Whatever your position is, I'd appreciate your input in the thread. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Alex, I haven't had much of a chance to talk lately, what with school having resumed with me. Just wanted to drop by and see how things were with you lately, on the 'pedia and off. Cheers, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Live & Kicking

I've read and annotated the article on paper. Tomorrow (Sunday, Feb 1 2009) I'll post my comments. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Live & Kicking GA review

I've posted my review of the article. It's nomination is now on hold awaiting improvements. Please let me know when you've addressed my concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Julie Lemieux

Hi,

You said that Julie Lemieux was not eligable for speedy deletion. The tag says that is applies to articles which are about "a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Could you elaborate/direct me so I understand that tag better?

Bladeofgrass (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A voice actress for several notable productions suggests she is notable. Feel free to PROD or AFD it, but it's not speediable. Majorly talk 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish

Dear Majorly, back in September I attempted to vanish after some disconcerting circumstances arose. At the time I was not indefinitely blocked, involved in arbitration, etc. An account created shortly after the attempt to vanish was alleged to be me and I was subsequently unvanished, but renamed. It was then made clear to me while being renamed that we cannot vanish and start over, which I now see is bolded on the RTV page: "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity;" however, Secret while invoking the right to vanish says he will come back as hidden account as a fresh start. If I and others are not allowed to do that, then I do not think it is fair if others can. Thus, should this be taken to an admin board as Balloonman suggested? I am concerned if it is allowed then it reflecting a double standard of sorts. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If he wants to be an admin that badly why not just let him? If he's unsuitable then we'll detect it in his RFA.--Patton^t/c 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The challenge is catching people as they do it... I suspect that if somebody wanted to, in a few weeks (give him time to recreate the account) that a check user would identify his account---or people might notice a similar editing pattern/history. I know that if I were to vanish, people would recognize me (I posted once as an IP, and somebody said, "I think that's Balloonman.") So, yes, the rules forbid it and when we know about it, it's not allowed. (It would doom any RfA if it came out.) That being said, the new account has to be identified and tied to the old account, otherwise we are waving our hands.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If someone states that they intend to not really vanish, do we still delete their talk page history as for example the edit history of my talk page is pretty much intact from before my name change. On another note, it is discouraging when people disagree, especially admins and go with incivil edit summaries, but what can you do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Can you guys (especially A_Nobody) leave me alone please, this is becoming harrassment. 147.70.92.48 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)